Delaware gazette and state journal. (Wilmington, Del.) 1883-1902, 1887-02-24

The opposing counsel say that unless the
plaintiff can bring home guilty knowledge
TO the defendant, he can not recover. We
admit that Mr.. Mendinhall never dreamed
that the building would fall. He had every
| incentive to make the building stand. But
| would you say that man ie not RESPONSE
BILE, because hehad nor known beforehand
of the danger2 That Is neither justice nor
law. We assert that the defendant negli-
| gently built the structure. and 1t had no
| right to do something dangerous. That is
common sense and maintain that the law
| will agree with common-sense. Where was
| the fault and defect In this WALTZ We admit
that the wall was we'll built, but that only
proves that the fault lay beyond that. The
defect was In the plans. Theophilus Chend-
Ter, the architect, tells you that. The con-
| tractor, Mr.. Simpson, suggested that the
wall was too light, but Mr. Mendlnhall ar
| gued that It was heavy enough. The shores
| were removed from the wall only day be-
| fore the building fell, and not three or four
| days, as the opposing counsel has said. Mr..
Enos also expressed dissatisfaction at the
| ltghtness OF the wall. Mr.. Davis, however,
| was cock-sure Of his ideas and his building.
he would not listen to Messrs. Simpson,
Enos and Chandler, practical men. .Oi course
II the pressure on that wall was straight up
and down 1t would bear great weight, but
the vibration or lateral pressure is the
i source of danger. Mi. Davis never considered
the fact that the higher the wall was
built, the less strong and the more dam
i Serous 1t became. The opposing counsel
laid particular stress on the point that there
| would be no lateral pressure, and Mr..
Chandler says that, IL defective, the mere
| vibration OF a man walking on 1t
would make 1t fall. Do you think
there would be no vibration on
that wall and building with line Of
shaftIng propelled by steam, running
through the building2 have argued this
case simply from the basis that the defend
ant erected this building negligently, and
furthermore, that It violated the ordinances
Of the city. 1t should have known what
the law required when the building permit
wall, whereas wall 81 feet high, the hight
| Of the wall which fell, according to the
| ordinance, must be at least 18 inches thick
The defendant has tried to prove to You
that the plaintiff was not injured. Do you
not believe that he was injured Then
falling wall, the wreck and ruin wrought,
/ and all doubts will be removed.
Then picture his mother admins
tering to his wants as he lay
| groaning on his bed. Men may speak lies
but they do not groan lies. This young
man was an athletic young fellow before
| the accident. Now he is a cripple, with
\ manned limbs and impaired constitution,
\ Just as he enters on the threshold OF man
mood. The opposing counsel argue that the
plaintiff entered on the work at his own
risk. An employe, under certain circnm-
stances, does take some risk in entering the
employ of another. If he is hurt by ma
chinery, or by the negligence OF fellow
employe, his employer Is not responsible;
but he must not take the risk OF injury
/ from wall built by another, as In this case.
The doctrine and pfecept OF the defendant,
that the young man took the risk in his
/ own hands when he went on that
building, was never good in this country
nor anywhere else The defendant also
charges that there was contrlbutory neRli-
eenee on the part of the plaintiff. 1t was
oontrlbutory negligence, they charge, that
| Giles went 70 work on the building. It
made no difference, they argued, that NJ,
| Mendinhall, Mr.. Davis and all the other
| officers of the company thought 1t safe. II
| Was contrilutory negligence on the part of
| Giles to assume that the building was
| safe. In regard to the wind which the
defendant gays caused the building to
fall, II 1t had been wrecked by a cyclone or
| some other unusual phenomena, the plain
tiff could not recover; but by the testimony
of their own witnesses, leaving out Of the
question our witnesses, 1t was not proven,
In the least, that the storm was more severe
than an ordinary summer gust which we
may have any day during the summer. 1t
blow dust into the buildings and cinders
against the windows, but that hap
pons during every gust The building
did not stand necause 1t was not
strong enough to Withstand wind which
every building should be able to stand. We
ask you to put the responsibility whet Q 1t
belongs, The young man Is poor; he has
been nAada miserable, but he must make n
living. therefore ASK for such damages
as shall be In some measure, a compensa-
tIon for the injuries received. He must
light the battle OF life with injured limbs,
impaired constitution, but he would not
give his sound health for all the money of
the Diamond State Iron Company.
Mr.. Gray finished at 7.30 O'Clock, when
court adj0drRed, until until Rasafday m9sRtag.
Superior court convened promptly at
o'clock Saturday morning with Chief Justice
Comegys and Judge Wootten On the bench.
There was full attendance of the legal
profession gathered before the bar of the
court and large gathering of laymen with
out the enclosure.
After the jury In the case OF Ferris Giles
VS.. the Diamond State Iron Company had
been polled the chief justice delivered his
charge in the case, which consumed about
35 minutes time, and the Jury retired at
$50 o'clock to deliberate upon verdict.
The chief justice prefaced his charge by
compliment to the makeup OF the jury
! and a reference to the able manner in
which the case had been presented. He
, stated that, In this case, no vindictive dam
ages could be awarded, as the action was
not brought to punish the defendant. The
charge, In full, follows;
The defendant In the year 1885 and before
that period was engaged In the business OF
manufacturing iron In the city of Whining
ton end still pursues the same employment.
Its exigenctes required that 1t should erect
q new building In addition to those already
owned by 1t; and the witnesses, Simpson
and Foulk were severally employed by Its
, to be partly of brick and the rest of wood,
/, and Simpson was to do the brick work.
i | The witness William II. Foulk was en-
ployed in like manner to do the wood work.
! BY the contract with Simpson, he was to
supply the bricks, lime and mortar for the
wall, and the labor to build It; but this, at
! the request of the defendant, through Its
, aforesaid agents, was so modified as that
! the defendant should furnish the bricks and
!, sand. The building was to be very large
! one, In $50 feet long, 56 or 81 feet wide and
! 81 feet high to the square; one side was to
be brick wall 81 feet high from the foun-
dation, and inches Cor one brick) thick
with pilasters 16 feet apart from centre to
q centre, II inches Cor two bricks) in thick
! ness, and about 26 or 81 inches Wide. The
: wall was, accordingly built of those dimen.
.. | sions; The other side of the building and
q q one Of its ends were built Of wood, but the
. other end was left open from the ground al
q the instance and by the orders of the defen-
! dant through Its agents Qhere was no other
i, floor to the square OF the building. This
I opening was, Of course, about 56 feet wide
4 by 81 feet high. The 9-inch wall was
n pierced in the middle of the space between
a each of the pilasters with an opening for 9
Il window, about Al feet wide by or 8 feet
4 high, in which window frames were Sc.
: cured. The whole structure waJ covered
! by what was called by the witnesses truss
! roof, self.supportlng and framed, as shown
!, by the plans exhibited. Upon the brick
: wall was wooden plate inches thick and
= 10 wide, and properly secured, where the
: pieces OF 1t were joined to make 1t contin
4 uous, There were girders resting upon this
q plate, over each Of tho pilasters; they wert
!, we'll secured to the wall through the plate
!, according to the testimony. There was
7, nothing resting upon the 9-inch wall bu
9 the plate described. All the actual weight
= therefore, of the truss frame with Its cover
. ing Of inch boards and longitudinal venti
4 lation of $50 feet, and Stating to be don't
! upon the whole, was to be borne by the pi
i lasters, with the lateral support tho 9-inel
i. walls between them would give to them. Al
the time the plans for the building (whici
:, were made by one of the defendants agents
Z with the specifications, were submitted t
4 and seen by the witness Simpson. He tell
q you that he suggested to the president o
\ i the company, Mr.. Mendinhall, when the,
Z, had the plans before them and were dis
y cussing about the building, that the 9-incl
=. wall looked thin and should be is inches
= ! brick and half thicker-gtvlng to then
:, as his reason, as he tells You, that the wal
- would be stiffened up by It. The president
q he says, argued to the contrary, and h
y gave the matter up; but in his second ex
n animation in behalf Of the plaintiff, he sait
- ~ he was OF the same opinion now as he ex
~ pressed then, If the witness suggestion